Scientific Reasoning in Young Children: Preschoolers’ Ability to Evaluate Covariation Evidence
Abstract
Preschool children’s basic scientific reasoning abilities were investigated in two experiments. Consistent with findings by Ruffman et al. (1993), Experiment 1 showed that even 4-year-olds can evaluate patterns of covariation evidence. However, even 6-year-olds had difficulties interpreting non-covariation evidence. Experiment 2 showed that 5-year-olds could overcome this difficulty when prompted to expect no causal relationship between two variables. Experiment 2 further showed that preschoolers’ evidence evaluation skills were affected by their pre-existing causal beliefs. However, their performance was above chance even when the evidence contradicted a prior belief they held with some conviction. In sum, our results demonstrate a basic understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relationship in preschool children, thus contributing to a revision of the picture of the scientifically illiterate preschooler.
References
Ahn, W. , Kalish, C. W. , Medin, D. L. , Gelman, S. A. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54(3), 299– 325Ash, A. , Torrance, N. , Lee, E. , Olson, D. R. (1993). The development of children’s understanding of the evidence for beliefs. Educational Psychology, 13(3/4), 371– 384Bullock, M. , Ziegler, A. (1999). Scientific reasoning: Developmental and individual differences. In F. E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Individual development from 3 to 12. Findings from the Munich Longitudinal Study. Cambridge: University PressChinn, C. A. , Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623– 254Inhelder, B. , Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic BooksKanari, Z. , Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 748– 769Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence. The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressKuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674– 689Kuhn, D. , Amsel, E. , O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: AcademicMartignon, L. , Wassner, C. (in press). Schulung frühen stochastischen Denkens in Kindern [Training of early stochastic thinking in children]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaften,Masnick, A. M. , Morris, B. J. (2002). Reasoning from data. The effect of sample size and variability in children’s and adults’ conclusions. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 643-648). Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumMillar, R. , Lubben, F. (1996). nvestigative work in science. The role of prior expectations and evidence in shaping conclusions. Education, 3, 28– 34Perner, J. , Davies, G. (1991). Understanding the mind as an active information processor: Do young children have a “copy theory of mind”?. Cognition, 39(1), 51– 69Rapp, A. F. , Wilkening, F. (in press). Children’s recognition of the usefulness of a record: Distinguishing deterministic and probabilistic events. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,Ruffman, T. , Perner, J. , Olson, D. R. , Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children’s understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development, 64, 1617– 1636Shultz, T. R. , Mendelson, R. (1975). The use of covariation as a principle of causal analysis. Child Development, 46(2), 394– 399Singer, J. A. , Kohn, A. S. , Resnick, L. B. (1997). Knowing about proportions in different contexts. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 115-132). Hove: Psychology PressSodian, B. , Zaitchik, D. , Carey, S. (1991). Young children’s differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753– 766Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning. A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51, 1– 10Wassner, C. , Martignon, L. , Sedlmeier, P. (2002). Die Bedeutung der Darbietungsform für das alltagsorientierte Lehren von Stochastik [The importance of presentation mode for teaching stochastics in everyday contexts]. In M. Prenzel & J. Doll (Eds.), Bildungsqualität von Schule: Schulische und außerschulische Bedingungen mathematischer, naturwissenschaftlicher und überfachlicher Kompetenzen. 45. Beiheft der Zeitschrift für Pädagogik (pp. 35-50). Weinheim, Germany: BeltzWilkening, F (1981). Integrating velocity, time, and distance variation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 231– 247
